Congresswoman Tammy Duckworth, who lost her legs and severely injured her arm during the Iraq war, grills some huckster during hearings about VA-preferred contract awards. I don't have anything especially compelling to add, it's just worth watching.

"The Rich are there to take all of the money & pay none of the taxes, the middle class is there to do all the work and pay all the taxes, and the poor are there to scare the crap out of the middle class." -George Carlin

I don't remember him predicting her loss. She ran in a district custom designed for her during redistricting. Gbaji just insisted that no one outside the Chicago collar counties should have any idea who either Walsh or Duckworth was.

Not that I disagree with anything Duckworth said. But she's just a congress-critter, not god and not a judge. However she was quite publicly and quite clearly passing judgement on this guy.

My opinion - she was out of line.

She's building a profile for herself through PR. This is how it's done. See Elizabeth Warren loudly complaining about investment bank polices and SEC enforcement when she knows full well there is ZERO chance of changing anything. If you're known for being a consumer advocate that's how you grandstand. If you're known for being an injured veteran you do it the way duck-worth did. If you're Rand Paul, you ask Ben Bernake idiotic questions while he sighs a lot.

Then you go and vote the way your largest donor tell you to. Which for Duckworth is basically Labor. Everything she says or does about Veteran's issues will gain no traction and is for entertainment purposes only.

____________________________

Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? ***. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

Duckworth implied that they were still looking into that. Which is probably why his government buddy plead the Fifth.

So maybe she should wait to attack someone until after she knows a bit more of the facts? I don't have a clue whether she's ultimately in the right on this issue in terms of waste of VA benefits and whatnot, but the way she did it essentially says anyone who doesn't have their limbs missing shouldn't get any benefits. Which is just pure grandstanding on her part and a pretty blatant "look at me! I'm missing my legs. Feel sorry for me!". It was all about her, and in the process she really kinda made herself out to be a complete a-hole.

If the benefit rules say someone who sprained his ankle gets benefits, then don't yell at someone with a sprained ankle for taking them. Look at the rules and if you don't like them, change them. She chose to go for what was really a cheap shot IMO. But yeah. Grandstanding.

So maybe she should wait to attack someone until after she knows a bit more of the facts? I don't have a clue whether she's ultimately in the right on this issue in terms of waste of VA benefits and whatnot, but the way she did it essentially says anyone who doesn't have their limbs missing shouldn't get any benefits.

Either you didn't watch it or you're a complete idiot because that clearly was not what she said or implied.

So maybe she should wait to attack someone until after she knows a bit more of the facts? I don't have a clue whether she's ultimately in the right on this issue in terms of waste of VA benefits and whatnot, but the way she did it essentially says anyone who doesn't have their limbs missing shouldn't get any benefits.

Either you didn't watch it or you're a complete idiot because that clearly was not what she said or implied.

She belittled minor injuries by contrasting them to her own. It was the "zinger" that folks were talking about earlier. What did you think she was doing with that? Hence my comment that it was more about her playing up her own handicapped status than providing any real contribution to the discussion.

She belittled minor injuries by contrasting them to her own. It was the "zinger" that folks were talking about earlier. What did you think she was doing with that?

Because the guy in question was passing off his prep school football injuries as service injuries. Given "in the service of his country" and the "cross he bears" for serving the US.

Do you think her reaction would be the same to someone who suffered an identical injury during actual military service? Not even "injured while running to save someone from an IED in Iraq" but even "hit by an army vehicle (do you guys still use jeeps?) in Texas while training in the National Guard"?

She belittled minor injuries by contrasting them to her own. It was the "zinger" that folks were talking about earlier. What did you think she was doing with that?

Because the guy in question was passing off his prep school football injuries as service injuries. Given "in the service of his country" and the "cross he bears" for serving the US.

Right. But I was responding to the "zinger" mentioned earlier. Which was specifically about contrasting the severity of the injuries themselves, not how they were obtained.

Quote:

Do you think her reaction would be the same to someone who suffered an identical injury during actual military service?

I don't know if she would. But her statement would be just as much of a "zinger" if that was the case. What made it a zinger was her contrasting her missing legs to someone with a sprained ankle. That's what I was talking about. I was very specific that I was not responding to the overall legitimacy of her argument, but merely the means by which she made it. Had she stuck to talking about how a given injury was sustained, and whether VA benefits should apply, it would be fine. But she made it about her own injuries compared to those claimed by someone else. I think that was completely unnecessary and was more about promoting herself (hey! don't forget I'm handicapped!) than about the issue at hand.

Hilarious that you can "absolutely" tell us how the SC would rule on a case when it supports your argument but you give non-answers like this when you know the real answer doesn't help you at all.

You know if she would. You just don't want to say it. You claimed she was essentially saying "anyone who doesn't have their limbs missing shouldn't get any benefits". I'm not talking about some "zinger" or if it would be as zingy (seriously, FF spellcheck? "Zingy" is a word?) if she said it to someone else. I'm asking about your claim. Do you honestly think she was saying or even remotely believes that "anyone who doesn't have their limbs missing shouldn't get any benefits"?

Huh. Apparently "zingy" is a word although not really related to "zinger" as you'd commonly use it.

Hilarious that you can "absolutely" tell us how the SC would rule on a case when it supports your argument but you give non-answers like this when you know the real answer doesn't help you at all.

They're two complete different things. In the first, I'm speculating that a court which just ruled that states and states alone have the right to decide what constitutes a legal marriage within that state would likely follow the same logic in a future case and rule that each state can decide whether to allow or disallow same *** marriages. Cause one follows from the other.

In the second, you're demanding that I must guess whether or not someone would make a distinction based on a set of criteria that isn't relevant to the point at hand. The point at hand is that she intentionally contrasted her loss of legs to someone's sprained ankle. Whether she would make the same comparison if the ankle had been sprained while serving in the military is something I can't say for sure. But if you want me to speculate I'd suggest that she absolutely would do so. You don't think that someone who lost two legs and partial use of an arm in combat might take issue with someone who got a sprained ankle while taking a shower, but since that person happened to be on active duty, it qualifies for the same VA benefits?

I think she would. I think most veterans would. It's the same as taking issue with someone who got treated for a splinter, but since it happened in a war zone, he got a purple heart for it. But that never happens, right?

Quote:

You know if she would. You just don't want to say it.

No. I honestly don't care. My point was about the impact of her statement about her legs. She was playing up her injuries in relation to those being claimed by someone else. And I think that's a cheap shot.

Quote:

You claimed she was essentially saying "anyone who doesn't have their limbs missing shouldn't get any benefits".

If we are to take her statement at face value, then yes, that's what she's saying. Her statement only has weight *if* the severity of the injuries are relevant to the issue at hand. But it's not. It's when/how/where the injury was sustained that matters. So why make the statement?

Her statement isn't intended to be taken at face value. It's intended to garner audience response. ****. It's why this thread exists in the first place, right? That was my point.

She belittled minor injuries by contrasting them to her own. It was the "zinger" that folks were talking about earlier. What did you think she was doing with that?

Because the guy in question was passing off his prep school football injuries as service injuries. Given "in the service of his country" and the "cross he bears" for serving the US.

Admittedly, I was a bit confused by the prep school injury qualifying the guy for veteran benefits at all. Was the guy fraudulent and trying to pass the injury off as a war wound? It didn't sound like that was the case. I wasn't even clear if the guy was a vet.

Do non-combat or non-military wounds or disabilities qualify one for this program?

If we are to take her statement at face value, then yes, that's what she's saying. Her statement only has weight *if* the severity of the injuries are relevant to the issue at hand. But it's not. It's when/how/where the injury was sustained that matters. So why make the statement?

The severity is criteria. It's the only criteria I could eke out of the video provided. The severity gets you a rating. Duckworths Arm got a 20% disability rating, this guys ankle a 30% disability rating. You have to have a sufficiently high rating to qualify for the program.

It seemed like the issue was that this guys rating was higher than it should be.

Why was it high?

Edit - this is apparently the gist of the discussion.

Why is it rated at all if it's not a war wound?

Edit - it seems the prep school was a military academy. The wound was sufficient for the guy to be discharged. However hi went on to play college football bringing to question the severity of the original wound.

So many questions, so few answers.

I guess I was bit put off by Duckworth's grand-standing her own wounds. It's irrelevant. The guy was a ****-wad, but either the guy misrepresented himself and/or his disability or he didn't.

He received the injury in military prep school. Which is different (I imagine) from actually serving in the armed forces *Edit: Wiki says students at USMAPS are paid a small stipend and are active members, so I could be hazy about any distinction. I am not a military lawyer-guy. I assume the fact that it was a military prep school is what opened the gate for him claiming it as a service injury.

The hearing was about fraud in small business awards going to service-disabled veterans. Per lolwiki:

Quote:

A business hoping to be considered "Service-Disabled Veteran" must be at least 51% owned by an individual who can be considered by the government as a Service-Disabled Veteran. The terms "veteran" and "service-disabled veteran" are defined in 38 U.S.C 101(2) and (16). The following definitions are as stated in that code.

Veteran - The term "veteran" means a person who served in the active military, naval, or air service, and who was discharged or released under conditions other than dishonorable.

Service Disabled - with respect to disability, that such disability was incurred or aggravated in line of duty in the active military, naval, or air service. An injury or disease incurred during military service will be deemed to have been incurred in the line of duty unless the disability was caused by the veteran’s own misconduct or abuse of alcohol or drugs, or was incurred while absent without permission or while confined by military or civilian authorities for serious crimes. Note that this definition does not require the disability to be causally connected to military service.

Such disability does not require a minimum rating to be considered. A veteran with a 0 to 100% disability rating is eligible to self-represent as a Service-Disabled Veteran for Federal contracting purposes.

Castillo was presenting his injury as service-related and deserving for consideration for federal contracts. His injury does not qualify per the law. I don't know the details of how he came to get his ranking and papers but, from his letters to the VA, he obviously presents his injuries as something they are not ("the cross I bear for the service to my nation", etc).

Quote:

I guess I was bit put off by Duckworth's grand-standing her own wounds

I think she was using them as a contrast for how ridiculous this guy's claims were. I don't doubt that she took the issue personally; besides her own wounds, she was the VA director in IL for a while and then Assistant Secretary of Public and Intergovernmental Affairs at the VA federal level.